From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-06 23:36:16
On Jul 6, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> As I recall, call_traits was intended to work around the "reference
>>> reference" problem for both parameters and return types. This
>>> has since been solved by cwg #106 (
>>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#106 ).
>> Or by boost::add_reference ;-)
> Out of interest, when did call_traits came into existence?
> Was it prior to type_traits? When was it reviewed? It seems
> that we are re-reviewing call_traits again?
Sorry, it's my fault. I sometimes look at Boost and see these little
libraries and wonder if they really belong at the same level as the
Python lib, or Spirit, or the Graph lib, etc. Call traits seems like a
trivial application of type traits, but hasn't been maintained with the
same vigor. Being accepted doesn't mean that a library stays in Boost
forever... for instance, my previous rampage resulted in having Compose
removed from Boost, because we have better libraries (Bind, Lambda,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk